Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste To Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County hears waste‑to‑energy pitch from Blue Earth County; staff estimate up to $3.8 million annual cost to move 40,000 tons
Summary
At a workshop, Blue Earth County staff and local presenters outlined a plan to route refuse‑derived fuel to a Mankato waste‑to‑energy outlet and asked if Scott County would send up to 40,000 tons a year. County staff said doing so could raise the average cost to about $166 per ton — roughly $3.8 million a year for half Scott County’s waste — and recommended further legal and financial study.
Blue Earth County staff presented a proposal at a Scott County workshop to route municipal waste into a refuse‑derived fuel (RDF) processing stream that feeds a Mankato waste‑to‑energy outlet, and Scott County staff gave preliminary cost estimates for sending up to 40,000 tons per year.
Scott County staff member Nick summarized the draft cost model and said current average disposal costs in Scott County are about $70 per ton. ‘‘So we'd be going from $70 a ton average to $166 a ton,’’ Nick said, listing estimated charges for transfer, transport, processing and the outlet fee. At 40,000 tons, staff calculated an approximate $3.8 million annual increase in local disposal spending, which could be allocated in different ways — a staff projection showed a ballpark of $2–$6 per household per month depending on how costs were apportioned.
Kate and Mark from Blue Earth County told the board that Xcel Energy is offering a 10‑year outlet arrangement that starts in 2027 and runs through 2037 and that the practical scale for a new RDF processing line is roughly 60,000 tons per year. Blue Earth presenters and Scott staff emphasized that some nearby processing and incineration facilities are at capacity, pointing to closures and capacity limits that make locating a reliable outlet more complex than it may appear on a map.
Staff described how an RDF processing line operates — pre‑sorting, shredding, reclamation of cardboard and metals, and potential organics recovery — and noted potential environmental benefits such as reduced long‑term landfill volume (presenters said residual ash can represent a large volume reduction). Presenters also acknowledged environmental and health concerns and said those are addressed through permitting; they highlighted preliminary testing that suggests high‑temperature incineration can destroy some PFAS compounds.
Board members asked detailed questions about costs, long‑term landfill liabilities and possible uses for ash (including road base). Staff said some ash management is the processor’s responsibility under current arrangements and that more market research and legal review would be needed to pursue reuse options.
On implementation, staff outlined two big decisions for the board: how to control the local flow of waste (options include public‑entity designation, waste‑designation statutes, or contractual approaches with haulers) and how to collect added costs (options include hauler passthroughs, a solid‑waste tax collected by haulers, or property assessments). Staff advised that legal guidance is necessary to evaluate flow‑control options and collection mechanisms.
Commissioners expressed cautious interest but raised affordability concerns. Several commissioners said they were ‘‘interested but not committed’’ and asked staff to proceed with additional analysis, including legal review and a formal request‑for‑information (RFI) to potential processors. Staff indicated the work could be funded from the solid‑waste fund and recommended a follow‑up work session in May or June.
What happens next: staff will pursue more detailed cost modelling, legal advice on flow control and fee collection, and an RFI process; they will return to the board with options and more specific financial impacts before any contractual commitments are made.
